You’re still fishing around in your imagination, Alan.
a) Nobody’s denying anyone their rights as a citizen.
b) Your substitution of “most” for “all” is still an insult.
c) Nobody’s being denied their rights to participate in the political system, which, btw, IS NOT THE SAME THING AS THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
d) What matters in a trial is not my rights, but the rights of the accused. Of course, if I’m on trial, then I am the accused.
Frankly, this is insulting. I’m as unbelieving as the next guy, and I dislike the religious right as much as anyone, but I absolutely would not vote the sleazeball Mr. Swaggart guilty unless the evidence demonstrated it beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, I expect I am hardly unique in this regard. Some of us might actually have some regard for civilized behaviour, which convicting accused felons in the absence of evidence is not. Perhaps you think that all us evil atheists follow no moral code, and would gleefully pursue a wrongful conviction of someone purely out of spite, but that would be your own prejudice talking, not reality.
As for Judge Moore, the man refused to obey a court order. There’s not exactly any wiggle room to debate whether he was in violation of his oath of office, and so approval of the recent decision against him is entirely in order.
a) For a government to assume the right to prevent a citizen from exercising his or her full range of rights as a citizen on the basis of personal beliefs, whether they are based on a religious or a non religious foundation, is to violate their civil rights, even if a majority of the people as whole approves such an action through a referendum.
b) It was not meant to be an insult. It was an assessment that the majority of a group of non believers, artificially selected under the existing travesty of the jury selection process, are as likely to behave in a prejudiced manner as a group of believers who have been artificially selected to serve on a jury.
A tendency to pre judge matters is not something found exclusively amongst the religious.
A jury that has not been artificially distorted by the peremptory challenge system may fall well short of being perfect, but it is probably more likely to be balanced in its deliberations.
c) A judicial system forms a part of the total political system and its processes.
In a system where all citizens are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law, no group of citizens should be placed at a more privileged level than another group based on such things as whether or not they subscribe to a particular set of beliefs, with the exception I mentioned in my previous post.
There is nothing sacrosanct about man made laws.
I gave an example of jury nullification as a means of defence against the enforcement of unjust laws or the enforcement of laws in an unjust manner.
So far, citizens who believe in jury nullification have not yet been declared to be ineligible for jury service by any court, where such rights exist, in the same manner as was done in some jurisdictions for some religious believers. But if the principle is accepted for one thing, then why not the other?
Agnostic at 17. Atheist at 19. Never seen fit to change my mind on the subject since.
I care very little about Judge M or his rock. I agree that the decision to remove the rock was correct, but I am a bit dubious about the line of questioning adopted at Judge M’s subsequent hearing (hijack over).
One of the points I was trying to make was that an artificially selected jury, of whatever flavour, is not likely to give an unbiased opinion or consider all aspects of a case, if people who have been artificially excluded no longer have the right to contribute to the process.
To address the issue of the insult, I had just finished going all the way through the Judge Moore Rock thread and the distinct impression I got from many of the posters (I don’t know if it was a simple majority as I didn’t count) was one of glee, rather than judicial indifference, so I unwisely included Dopers as a group in my example, this being fresh in my mind and all that.
The generalisation was plainly unjustified and sorry to all who took offense.
Glee at the result does absolutely nothing whatsoever to indicate a propensity to subvert justice.
But apology accepted, nonetheless.
Alan: Here’s an accurate, IMHO, of your posting just above your last one.
a) Repetition of your assertion with no connection to the issue at hand.
b) Insulting/Possibly prejudicial (see Gorsnak’s post)/Invalid comment.
c) Ridiculous description.
Should a prosecutor, or a defense attorney, be able to exercise a peremptory challenge to remove a juror because that juror indicates he or she is an atheist?
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I was under the impression that you could use a peremptory strike for whatever you wanted, and as long as the Judge didn’t see a pattern (like, for example, a lawyer is intentionally using all his/her strikes to keep black people off the jury, etc.), this was all fine and dandy. You can strike 'em if they have ugly toes if you want. And if I’m not mistaken, the lawyers don’t have to tell WHY they are using a strike on a juror, they just do it. It’s the strikes for cause that they have to talk to the Judge about.
Bricker, I don’t see why a lawyer would want to remove someone solely because they are an atheist. I’m of the opinion that, within reason, a lawyer should be able to strike whoever they want to (IIRC there are safeguards in place to see that lawyers can’t stack the jury with all whites/blacks/Republicans/Democrats/etc.). But striking someone JUST because they’re an atheist, with no other reasoning to back up their decision, sounds silly to me. Peremptory strikes are few and precious, IIRC, so you would think that they would want more of a reason than just “Juror #4 is an atheist” to use one of their strikes. But yeah, if they wanted to, I don’t see why not.
It seems to me that peremptory strikes are allowed so both sides end up not getting the jury they really want. I guess the idea is that a jury that makes both sides uneasy is most likely to be impartial.
IANAL and all that jazz. Correct me if I’m wrong about the peremptory strikes thing. Maybe the law is different from state to state?
I’m still confused - if peremptory challenges are now required to be justified, then how is a peremptory challenge any different than a dismissal for cause?
how is a peremptory challenge any different than a dismissal for cause?
Because a dismissal for cause doesn’t burn up a peremptory challenge. Neither side loses any strikes, the juror is dismissed by the Court.
My guess, anyway.
I agree with Gorsnak; being gleeful at an asshole judge who clearly put himself above the law getting his comeuppance is in no way related to a desire to deliberately reach an incorrect verdict in a fraud trial.:rolleyes:
You’re right; that’s what the difference is in theory; I meant how are they different in light of the fact that peremptory challenges are now required to have a cause? In other words, why would either side need peremptory challenges anymore? If they have a reason, they could just get the juror dismissed for cause.
The Batson decision made peremptory challenges different in character.
As I said before, a challenge for cause must be made with argument to the judge each and every time, and they are unlimited. A peremptory challenge, of which each isde has a limited number, can be made without supplying a reason… EXCEPT if the other side believes that it was exercised for a Batson-forbidden reason. At that point, the rpocedure is as follows:
Defense: Objection, Your Honor. Their last four strikes have removed African-Americans, and this violates Batson.
(The judge must now decide if the defense has made a prima facie case. If there are no other African-American people in the pool, and the strikes were used just on them, he probably will find that this is at least a prima facie showing of racial bias. If the prosecution’s previous strikes also included other races, and there are African-American jurors that have already been accepted by the prosecution, the judge may find that the last four strikes are mere coincidence, and don’t even rise to a prima facie showing. If he finds a prima facie showing of racial bias:)
THE COURT: Mr. Prosecutor, please provide your justification for using your peremptory strikes on those members.
Prosecution: I did it because they were black, and I felt they would favor my client, who is also black, and be disinclined to believe the police.
THE COURT: That’s unacceptable under Batson v. Kentucky, so I’m going to order those four jurors seated.
THE COURT: Mr. Prosecutor, please provide your justification for using your peremptory strikes on those members.
Prosecution: I struck Juror 7 because he was dressed very shabbily, and it’s been my experience that people that don’t dress up for jury duty favor the defense. I struck Juror 9 because his questionnaire indicated he’s been arrested before, and was innocent, and I believe that disposes him to unfavorably regard the police. I struck Juror 10 because he indicated he has three family members with felony conviction. I struck Juror 15 because his questionnaire indicates he believes the drug war and drug laws are wrong, and this is a possession case.
THE COURT: I find the prosecution’s explanation to be credible, the strikes stand.
THE COURT: Mr. Prosecutor, please provide your justification for using your peremptory strikes on those members.
Prosecution: I struck them because they all looked at me funny. Yeah, that’s the ticket. It wasn’t the fact that they’re all… you know… those people.
THE COURT: I find your explanation not credible, and I order the jurors seated.
I have no idea how that rogue smiley got in there.
Thank you, Bricker, I think I see the difference better now.
So, just to clarify a hair more, potential jurors are questioned before any dismissal, right?
Yes, typically, although it may simply be a written questionnaire, rather than one-on-one dialog.
And in rereading my sample dialog above, the prosecutor refers to “my client” when he meant to say “the accused.”
Sheesh.
That would probably constitute a conflict of interest, no?
Can a prospective juror refuse to answer questions about their background and beliefs?
If an attorney seems to be fishing for stuff he will use in his pre-emptory challenges, could I mark “none of your business” to questions about my religious beliefs, affiliations, etc.?
I have never been called for jury duty.
Regards,
Shodan